le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
to rub off...
How do you handle evil?
mythago
Hero
This. Law and Chaos were taken straight from the Melniboné novels, where they are opposed, literal cosmic forces. Neither one is "good" or "evil", and really they're portrayed as leaning evil/destructive because Moorcock was doing grimdark before grimdark was the new hotness.
On playing evil characters, I dunno, how are you playing them?
aramis erak
Legend
Murder is a loaded term.
Not all homicide is murder. Not even all of it rises to manslaughter (which usually includes the lack of intent to harm).
THe question then becomes, where does one draw the lines inside the area of "Homicide."
Crimson Longinus
Legend
I don't use alignment or believe it is an useful way to describe morality, so I don't know how to answer in the poll.
But I'm fine with characters not being morally perfect. They just need to be able to work together and not so horrible that the game becomes distasteful to the participants. Though I generally feel that games are easier to run if the characters have at least some vaguely altruistic motivations, though those don't need to be their sole or even main motivations.
I also don't find characters that are pretty much devoid of redeeming features particularly appealing. I like characters with darkness and edge, but it is more interesting if it is contested with some noble goals or very deeply buried heart of gold. Antiheroes and villains with understandable motivations are far more interesting than outright monsters.
But I'm fine with characters not being morally perfect. They just need to be able to work together and not so horrible that the game becomes distasteful to the participants. Though I generally feel that games are easier to run if the characters have at least some vaguely altruistic motivations, though those don't need to be their sole or even main motivations.
I also don't find characters that are pretty much devoid of redeeming features particularly appealing. I like characters with darkness and edge, but it is more interesting if it is contested with some noble goals or very deeply buried heart of gold. Antiheroes and villains with understandable motivations are far more interesting than outright monsters.
le Redoutable
Ich bin El Glouglou :)
noone wants to play an Evil Character, still some players are Cruel in their intent; call 'em Rogues if you like 
TaranTheWanderer
Legend
I find it weird that people think ‘evil characters just want to kill/steal from the party’
ive played in a few games where the whole party was shady to evil. The players agreed to build characters that could depend on each other and trusted each other. Just because you’re ‘evil’ doesn’t mean you can’t have allies or friends.
the games, generally, centred around organized crime, building armies and accruing power. It was a serious game and we weren’t playing silly characters except that I found it difficult to go against my natural tendency (as a person) to ‘help’ people rather than manipulate or use them. It was a neat thought experiment but I prefer heroic PCs.
it works best if all the players on on board to prevent too many in-party conflicts.
speaking of silly evil. This is probably the best kind:
ive played in a few games where the whole party was shady to evil. The players agreed to build characters that could depend on each other and trusted each other. Just because you’re ‘evil’ doesn’t mean you can’t have allies or friends.
the games, generally, centred around organized crime, building armies and accruing power. It was a serious game and we weren’t playing silly characters except that I found it difficult to go against my natural tendency (as a person) to ‘help’ people rather than manipulate or use them. It was a neat thought experiment but I prefer heroic PCs.
it works best if all the players on on board to prevent too many in-party conflicts.
speaking of silly evil. This is probably the best kind:
Sepulchrave II
Legend
This is a strange thread. Although it's in the "General" forum, the language of the poll is couched entirely in terms of D&D, so it seems appropriate to approach the question in those terms.
"Evil" - in the sense of alignment - is a label which we attach to our characters at creation, which is either demonstrated or refuted (?) during the course of play. The reason that I add the (?) after "refuted" is that evil may act as potential - always on the threshold of manifestation - and the great literary reveals of evil are in those moments when it is suddenly made clear that that which you thought was wholesome and good, is, in fact, corrupt and abominable.
This momentary reveal - in terms of a story's arc - would seem, to me, very hard to maintain in the sense of a character's subsequent behaviour; unless he or she can in insert themselves into a new group or scenario which is oblivious to their previous wickedness, and which can then be the target of their next betrayal. Perhaps evil characters are best suited to solo games - something Cugel-esque, maybe. Otherwise, you are inevitably left with a kind of pastiche or caricature: the final episode of The Black Adder - The Black Seal - springs to mind, where Edmund recruits the "six most evil men in England."
In the alternative scenario, where characters engage in what we - inhabiting modernity - might describe as psychopathic behaviour, we can't avoid asking the question of why the player would want to represent themselves in this way. I think that player issues around ineffectualness or powerlessness seems a reasonable conclusion.
"Evil" - in the sense of alignment - is a label which we attach to our characters at creation, which is either demonstrated or refuted (?) during the course of play. The reason that I add the (?) after "refuted" is that evil may act as potential - always on the threshold of manifestation - and the great literary reveals of evil are in those moments when it is suddenly made clear that that which you thought was wholesome and good, is, in fact, corrupt and abominable.
This momentary reveal - in terms of a story's arc - would seem, to me, very hard to maintain in the sense of a character's subsequent behaviour; unless he or she can in insert themselves into a new group or scenario which is oblivious to their previous wickedness, and which can then be the target of their next betrayal. Perhaps evil characters are best suited to solo games - something Cugel-esque, maybe. Otherwise, you are inevitably left with a kind of pastiche or caricature: the final episode of The Black Adder - The Black Seal - springs to mind, where Edmund recruits the "six most evil men in England."
In the alternative scenario, where characters engage in what we - inhabiting modernity - might describe as psychopathic behaviour, we can't avoid asking the question of why the player would want to represent themselves in this way. I think that player issues around ineffectualness or powerlessness seems a reasonable conclusion.
